To: The New York Times
From: A Former Reporter/Current News Junkie
Re: Why so flaky lately?
Oh, The New York Times, why must you be so unlikeable? So hard to rely upon for news about its own biggest current newsmaker?
Why are you making moves that makes me wonder if I need to buy you a journalism 101 textbook?
Do you not see that this situation – especially your habit of getting scooped on your own reporter’s actions – is switching from comic to tragic?
I started writing this column Friday morning. I was all set to write that it was generally a good week for the news media, especially for The New York Times and the Washington Post.
Both newspapers had excellent editorials attacking President Bush’ comments about vetoing a bill that would have blocked torture.
Both newspapers had what seemed – seemed being the key word – thorough articles on this whole sordid mess about Judith Miller. She is the one who has been in bed with the White House administration, first for being their stooge for trumped up stories about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and then for having some role in this whole mess with outing a CIA agent.
Meanwhile, Jay Rosen – one of my favorite media critics – wrote his influential column about how he no longer considers The New York Timesthe nation's best newspaper.
Derek Rose and other bloggers quickly came to the Timesdefense.
I wanted to love you again, New York Times. Really, I did. Why must that love be unrequited?
Trashing you week after week was getting old.
I had criticized you for being clueless – especially as compared to the Washington Post – in adjusting to the Internet age by putting content behind walls.
And when Judith Miller got out of jail I questioned how the New York Times can get scooped on its own reporter’s release and why some questions are being met with new questions.
So as you can see some good news was welcome, and not just for The New York Times.
After Katrina, some reporters were acting lazy and too self-congratulatory. When it became clear that some of the rumors they reported were, well, rumors, they began to understandably shut up. I urged them to get off their butts, put away the champagne and get back to work.
Article comments
1 - Scott Butki
I was amused to see the Freelancing for Dummies book because originally I was going to make a joking suggestion the Times get a copy of Reporting for Dummies.
Then I realized such a title - which I'd just made up - might actually exist!
I posted links to this piece at journalism sites so a few reporters may come around.
2 - Dave Nalle
We don't actually need the New York Times. It's been flaky for years. The Washington Post has been a better paper for most of my life, and it's about time people started realizing it.
Dave
3 - Matthew T. Sussman
But the NY Times is the only NY newspaper that doesn't know the exact times and locations Lindsay Lohan gets drunk.
4 - Scott Butki
Dave, I agree but I wondered if I just liked the Post better because I live near DC but after reading it I decided my instincts was right.
Oh, my, I think we just agreed on something!
---------
Matthew, oh, you got me there!
Get me rewrite! That explains their problems
Maybe if they put Miller on the Lohan beat... hmmm...
5 - Cerulean
Scott, I want to know more how she outed that CIA agent for the White House if she did. I guess it was probably in the news already, but it wasn't really explored from the angle of her guilt there and the NY Times' as well. It seems hard to believe that the higher ups at the Newspaper weren't party to that as well.
Their silence could well be explained in that way.
I felt sorry for her going to jail and I felt that it was wrong, but when I looked her, I somehow didn't like her. Maybe now I know why?
6 - DrPat
OMG! Lindsay Lohan is a covert CIA agent!?! Oh wait - are you saying that Judith Miller outed Plame, and NYT put the blame on Rove's assistant?
So was it Lindsay Lohan on the grassy knoll? Now I'm confused...
7 - Scott Butki
The weird part - ok, one of the weird parts - is that Miller never publishd a story on the issue. It's not clear why she did interviews but never published anything and this weeks' news that she had a second set of notes relating to the interview for a story she never ran makes this whole escapade even odder.
So, no, she didn't write anything that outted Plame. But the real crime - according to the law - was in someone revealing Plame's identity in the first place and THAT could have happened regardless of whether a story was published.
And I think Lohan is the one who was the leak under the guise of being a crazy trashy party girl.
That's the long answer.
8 - Scott Butki
The short answer...
Here, Dr. Pat, this will help clarify everything.
This link was put at my blog today by a mystery man and I think it explains everything.
9 - Cerulean
It's important if Judith Miller was or was not the leak. If she was, she jeapordized lives to serve as a stooge for the Bush Administration. If not, she might just be a real hero. I want to know.
10 - Scott Butki
So do I. So do loads of people.
And as readers of her newspaper we think we have a right to know.
11 - Cerulean
I wish you'd look into it and write about it.
12 - Scott Butki
Oops. This is
the link
I was suggesting is helpful... sort of.
13 - Scott Butki
You want me to write MORE about Miller. Man, I was trying to cut back on my amount of Miller time.
I'm trying to read between the lines but it's still unclear.
Did you click that link? That should explain everything!
14 - Scott Butki
Today is Judith Miller's day back
visiting with the Grand jury prosecutor. Meanwhile there's a good new entry on the topic at Press Think.
15 - Scott Butki
Oh this is getting more interesting!
What are the odds that both Miller and Libby Lewis forgot to mention to the grand jury - let alone the New York Times readers - that Miller and Lewis talked about Joe Wilson BEFOE Wilson even wrote his op-ed.
This is getting weirder by the day.
From Slate'sToday's Papers
Everybody mentions that the NYT's Judy Miller had a chat yesterday with the special prosecutor in the Plame case and will now talk to the grand jury again; she's scheduled to appear today. The movement comes after some notes Miller recently rediscovered helped her jog her memory regarding a previously undisclosed chat she had with the vice president's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, about White House critic Joseph Wilson weeks before Wilson went public questioning the administration's prewar uranium claims. The National Journalâ€"a respected beltway publicationâ€"reported yesterday that Libby also has had a bit of a senior moment and didn't disclose the chat during testimony.
The Post describes "numerous lawyers" in the Plame case as "bracing for ... criminal charges against administration officials." The Journal reads the tea leaves and guesses that the special prosecutor "might be investigating not a narrow case on the leaking of the agent's name, but perhaps a broader conspiracy."
The least-detailed (but least-speculative!) piece on Miller's appearance comes from the NYT. The paper's editor, Bill Keller, sent out a memo yesterday explaining that the Times is doing a big takeout on the case but hasn't finished yet because Miller has stayed mum on some things since "she remains under a contempt-of-court order, and is not yet clear of legal jeopardy." A few questions: What does the contempt-of-court order cover? Is it only her grand jury testimony, or something more? In other words, what are the legal risks in Miller talking? And, again, this is unclear: Is the Times delaying its reporting in deference to those stated legal concerns?
16 - Scott Butki
Things in Miller-NYT land are getting wild and weird again, just in time for the weekend
I wrote about it here rather than for Blog Critics this week.
17 - Scott Butki
So do you think the Times performance has improved any in recent days?
18 - Scott Butki
I wrote a reply to Keller, telling him it's a nice start but listing where his memo falls short and what else he needs to do